Non-Monetized Impacts in Economic Analysis

Transcription

1 concept Heidi Bull-Berg, Gro Holst Volden and Inger Lise Tyholt Grindvoll Non-Monetized Impacts in Economic Analysis Practice and Lessons from Public Investment Projects concept

2 concept Heidi Bull-Berg, Gro Holst Volden and Inger Lise Tyholt Grindvoll Non-Monetized Impacts in Economic Analysis Practice and Lessons from Public Investment Projects Concept rapport Nr. 38

3 1 Concept Research Programme 2014 Non-Monetized Impacts in Economic Analysis Practice and Lessons from Public Investment Projects English summary Heidi Bull-Berg Gro Holst Volden Inger Lise Tyholt Grindvoll Original title: Ikke-prissatte virkninger i samfunnsøkonomisk analyse. Praksis og erfaringer i statlige investeringsprosjekter. For the full report in Norwegian, see Concept website ISSN: (paper version) ISSN: (web version) ISBN: (paper version) ISBN: (web version) Date: May 2014 Publisher: Concept Research Programme Norwegian University of Science and Technology 7491 NTNU Trondheim Norway Responsibility for the information in the reports produced on behalf of the Concept Research Programme is on the commissioned party. Views and conclusions is on account of the authors and not necessarily identical to the views of the Concept Research Programme. All contributions are reviewed in a peer review process.

4 2 In the year 2000 the Norwegian Ministry of Finance introduced a Quality Assurance scheme in Norway. Under the scheme, an ex-ante project appraisal, including an economic analysis (cost-benefit analysis), is required for all large public investment projects exceeding NOK 750 million. All appraisals are reviewed by an external quality assurer before approval by the cabinet. The purpose of our study was to map current practice in the analysis of nonmonetized impacts of major public investment projects. We wanted to examine how non-monetized impacts are interpreted and how they are measured and evaluated. All impacts of the project alternatives need to be identified, quantified, and valued in monetary terms as far as possible. However, in practice there are always some impacts that cannot be monetized, but are nevertheless crucial for the decision maker s choice of investment alternative. It is therefore important that such nonmonetized impacts are systematically reviewed, based on the most transparent methodology and well-documented processes. In Norway, the Norwegian Public Roads Administration s (NPRA) methodology for assessing the non-monetized impacts of road projects is widely used and referred to, even outside the road sector. However, the methodology is best suited for detailed assessments of road routes. The purpose of the study was not to develop a new and improved methodology for the assessment of non-monetized impacts. However, we hope that the findings will point to some key principles, concepts, and recommendations that may be useful in practical analyses. Dealing with non-monetized impacts In an economic analysis, all impacts should be measured in monetary terms to an extent that is professionally and ethically acceptable. Stated-preference and revealed-preference techniques are available, and many impacts can potentially be priced. However, the techniques are often costly and time consuming. A further different consideration is whether a monetary measurement is a useful and informative way to present an impact. A cost-benefit analysis weights the interests of different individuals according to their willingness to pay (which in turn depends on how wealthy they are), in the same way as in a market. This is a clear and simple principle and exempts the analyst from having to make subjective judgments, but it may be argued that willingness to pay is not a good measure of social benefit. (As pointed out by the Ministry of Finance (2005) and in NOU 2012:16, a cost-benefit analysis should not be confused with a measure of what is in the best interests of

5 3 society.) Hence, policy makers will often be interested in other perspectives than purely economic ones, such as a supplementary analysis of goal achievement. However, supplementary analyses should not be conducted in conjunction with cost-benefit analyses. We consider that an analysis of non-monetized impacts falls neatly into four steps, of which steps 1 and 2 should always be performed by an analyst, whereas in some cases steps 3 and 4 should be left to a political decision maker. 1. Identify impacts A project s impacts should be listed, and those that cannot be priced should be separated. In the front-end of major public investment projects, the level of uncertainty is high and therefore any list of impacts should not be too detailed. Rather, it is more important to include all the major and significant impact areas that may influence the choice of concept. 2. Determine the physical extent of an impact The second step is to determine the extent of an impact. To establish a volume indicator you may use quantitative measures of, for example, the area affected (square meters), the time period, and the number of people affected. 3. Determine the importance of each impact for society The third step is to determine the importance of the impact to society. In the same way as a monetized impact is the product of quantity and a unit price, the valuation of a non-monetized impact can be seen comprising physical extent and social importance. By social importance, we mean the value that society places on the physical changes generated by a project. For example, society will normally place a higher value on a widely used recreational area than an area without special qualities. Hence, in the former case, a given intervention in nature will imply a more negative impact than in the latter case. It is therefore important to clarify how social importance should be measured and to ensure that similar projects are treated equally. The NPRA measurement scale for overall impact assessment is a 9-point scale, ranging from (----) to (++++). To ensure a maximum negative (positive) impact there should be a maximum negative (positive) physical extent and a maximum social importance in the area in question. Other measurement scales exist, such as color scales, traffic lights, numbers, and smileys.

6 4 4. Make an overall evaluation and rank alternatives Once the non-monetized impacts have been assessed individually, the fourth step is to compile them and consider whether they contribute to strengthening or weakening each concept s profitability measured by net present value. The fundamental question is whether the compiled set of non-monetized impacts affects the ranking of alternatives. In addition, as mentioned, it is often relevant to perform supplementary analyses, such as goal achievement or distributional effects, in order to form the best possible decision basis. These supplementary analyses should be separated from the economic analysis relating to economic profitability. The final decision, which involves balancing profitability against goal achievement, distributional effects, and other considerations, should be left to the decision maker. It is important to emphasize that a methodology for assessing non-monetized impacts should not only include measurement scales and criteria, but also guidelines concerning who should make the assessments, which data sources to consult, and how to document the results of the assessments. Results and findings from the empirical study As part of the study, we reviewed the ex-ante assessments of 58 major public investment projects in the period and conducted under the Norwegian Ministry of Finance s Quality Assurance scheme. Transport, defense, real estate, ICT, and sports events were included in the study. We reviewed reports prepared by public agencies as well as reports from the independent quality assurers. Our objective was to map how the non-monetized impacts were assessed. In addition to the document analysis, we interviewed 19 key persons involved in the analyses, in order to discuss the findings and gain a deeper insight into how the analyses of the non-monetized impacts were performed and to identify the main challenges and pitfalls. The interviewees represented public agencies, quality assurers, and ministries (policy makers). In summary, the key findings are: 90% of the economic analyses included an analysis of non-monetized impacts. The agencies analyses often placed greater emphasis on the non-monetized impacts than the quality assurers analyses.

7 5 It was not always clear how the reports defined and delimited non-monetized impacts. Our impression is that different analysts attempted to answer different questions. Some analysts answered the question of whether the nonmonetized impacts strengthened or weakened the economic profitability (i.e., they used the same principle when assessing non-monetized impacts as they did for monetized impacts). More quality assurers than agencies fell into this category. Other analysts seemed to perform an assessment of goal achievement, and their reports seemed to take the form of multi-criteria decision analyses rather than economic analyses. Still others included both two types of analysis, but did not always distinguish between them explicitly. Some of the analyses of non-monetized impacts therefore appeared messy and unclear. The most commonly used measurement scale comprises plus and minus signs. Many of the reports thus followed the NPRA recommendation concerning measurement scale, but there were variations, as color scales, numeric scales, and purely qualitative descriptions were also observed. Even when plus and minus signs were used, the number of categories and the interpretation of the results varied. For example, in a given assignment, (++) were in some cases interpreted as an overall impact assessment (with both physical extent and social importance taken into consideration), while in other cases they were interpreted as purely a volume indicator, and in still others as an assessment of goal achievement. Very few of the reports addressed the development over time and/or uncertainty in non-monetized impacts. Only about half of the reports explained or referred to the methodology used or to associated guidance material. When they did, they often referred to the NPRA s methodology. A few referred to multi-criteria decision analysis. The quality assurers often followed the same methodology as the agency, but in some cases they questioned what was done. In some analyses of road projects, the report said that a simplified NPRA method is used to assess the nonmonetized impacts, but it is not always clear what the simplification involves. Analyses of other types of projects often referred to the NPRA guide, even though it was readily apparent that they did not follow it. Information about who had performed the analysis was only found in about half of the projects. Some agencies used external consultants in their work, but the consultants role in the analysis of non-monetized impacts was rarely explained. In a few cases, the reports informed that stakeholder groups had been involved in the assessments. Quality assurers seemed to rely mainly on

8 6 their own expertise, but did not inform which individuals or professions had been involved. In 39% of the cases, an overall evaluation of all the non-monetized impacts for each alternative was included, while 61% presented the individual impacts unweighted. 40% of the reports included an analysis of distributional effects. 40 % included an analysis of regional effects (as part of the distributional analysis or as a separate analysis). In some cases, regional economic impacts are wider economic impacts, whereas in other cases they are purely distributional impacts. Very few, if any, of the reports distinguished between the two types of impact. 30% of the reports contained an overall recommendation, based on the monetized and non-monetized impacts, distributional effects, and other considerations. Only a few of these gave a thorough justification for the tradeoffs made. Our impression is that quality assurers normally base their recommendation on the economic analysis alone (monetized and nonmonetized), whereas the agencies more often draw on all of the information. The interviewees considered that the current guidelines are in need of improvement with regard to the treatment of non-monetized impacts. A full understanding of what such impacts should measure is lacking, and a step-bystep guide would be welcomed. Some interviewees pointed out that a special guide for assessing regional impacts is needed. The whether this should be the individual agency s responsibility. Interviewees representing policy makers (i.e., the users of the reports) stated that the analysis of non-monetized impacts was useful to them and that they read it with interest. However, they emphasized that its usefulness depended heavily on its quality. Some interviewees pointed out that their confidence in the analysis increased when the policy makers themselves had been involved in the process. Others said that they do not want just a ready-weighted conclusion, but rather prefer to have all the underlying information and be free to make an independent assessment of the relative importance of different impacts.

9 7 Our recommendations The choice of principle and methodology for assessment In many cases of analysis of non-monetized impacts where ethical, political, and distributional considerations are involved, it may be better for analysts to identify the non-monetized impacts and determine their physical extent (steps 1 and 2), but leave steps 3 and 4 to policy makers. When performing steps 3 and 4, analysts should be more specific and clear about the alternative decision criteria (e.g., economic impacts or goal achievement.) when performing an assessment of non-monetary impacts. The term non-monetary impact should be reserved for impacts assessed based on economic criteria. However, it is often useful to perform a supplementary analysis of goal achievement. The results of different kind of analyses should not be combined but rather presented as separate analyses. It would be useful for decision makers to be made aware of any conflict between the results of the different analyses. It is possible for an analyst to provide an overall recommendation (based on all the analyses) without being normative, only when policy makers have specified explicit weighting of different goals or considerations. Regional impacts Regional impacts appear to be a particularly challenging area, especially the distinction between wider economic impacts and distributional impacts. The need for better guidelines in this area was pointed out by several interviewees. Development over time and uncertainty We found that very few analysts were concerned with trends in non-monetized impacts over time. Furthermore, assessments of non-monetized impacts rarely include a presentation of uncertainty. We recommend that further guidance should therefore develop in this area too, in order to ensure that non-monetized impacts are treated as thoroughly as monetized impacts. The sectorial agencies should take responsibility for guidance Our recommendation is that each public sector (e.g., road, train, buildings, and defense) should mainly be responsible for further guidance on the practical

10 8 implementation of analyses of non-monetary impacts. It is important to clarify questions such as: What impacts should typically be evaluated in the front-end of the project? Which data sources are most relevant? Should physical units be converted into a common scale, and if so, should the scale measure only physical extent or also social importance? How should the scale be interpreted and used? What are the general requirements for the assessment process and documentation that should be provided?

11 Concept report series Paper version ISSN Web version ISSN Norwegian English summary Report Title Author No 1 No 2 No 3 No 4 No 5 No 6 No 7 No 8 No 9 No 10 No 11 No 12 No 13 Styring av prosjektporteføljer i staten. Usikkerhetsavsetning på porteføljenivå Project Portfolio Management. Estimating Provisions for Uncertainty at Portfolio Level. Statlig styring av prosjektledelse. Empiri og økonomiske prinsipper. Economic Incentives in Public Project Management Beslutningsunderlag og beslutninger i store statlige investeringsprosjekt Decisions and the Basis for Decisions in Major Public Investment Projects Konseptutvikling og evaluering i store statlige investeringsprosjekt Concept Development and Evaluation in Major Public Investment Projects Bedre behovsanalyser. Erfaringer og anbefalinger om behovsanalyser i store offentlige investeringsprosjekt Needs Analysis in Major Public Investment Projects. Lessons and Recommendations Målformulering i store statlige investeringsprosjekt Alignment of Objectives in Major Public Investment Projects Hvordan trur vi at det blir? Effektvurderinger av store offentlige prosjekt Up-front Conjecture of Anticipated Effects of Major Public Investment Projects Realopsjoner og fleksibilitet i store offentlige investeringsprosjekt Real Options and Flexibility in Major Public Investment Projects Bedre utforming av store offentlige investeringsprosjekter. Vurdering av behov, mål og effekt i tidligfasen Improved Design of Public Investment Projects. Up-front Appraisal of Needs, Objectives and Effects Usikkerhetsanalyse Kontekst og grunnlag Uncertainty Analysis Context and Foundations Usikkerhetsanalyse Modellering, estimering og beregning Uncertainty Analysis Modeling, Estimation and Calculation Metoder for usikkerhetsanalyse Uncertainty Analysis Methodology Usikkerhetsanalyse Feilkilder i metode og beregning Uncertainty Analysis Methodological Errors in Data and Stein Berntsen og Thorleif Sunde Dag Morten Dalen, Ola Lædre og Christian Riis Stein V. Larsen, Eilif Holte og Sverre Haanæs Hege Gry Solheim, Erik Dammen, Håvard O. Skaldebø, Eystein Myking, Elisabeth K. Svendsen og Paul Torgersen Petter Næss Ole Jonny Klakegg Nils Olsson Kjell Arne Brekke Petter Næss med bidrag fra Kjell Arne Brekke, Nils Olsson og Ole Jonny Klakegg Kjell Austeng, Olav Torp, Jon Terje Midtbø, Ingemund Jordanger, og Ole M Magnussen Frode Drevland, Kjell Austeng og Olav Torp Kjell Austeng, Jon Terje Midtbø, Vidar Helland, Olav Torp og Ingemund Jordanger Kjell Austeng, Vibeke Binz og Frode Drevland

12 Concept report series Paper version ISSN Web version ISSN Norwegian English summary Report Title Author Analysis No 14 No 15 No 16 No 17 No 18 No 19 No 20 No 21 No 22 No 23 No 24 No 25 Positiv usikkerhet og økt verdiskaping Positive Uncertainty and Increasing Return on Investments Kostnadsusikkerhet i store statlige investeringsprosjekter; Empiriske studier basert på KS2 Cost Uncertainty in Large Public Investment Projects. Empirical Studies Kontrahering i prosjektets tidligfase. Forsvarets anskaffelser. Procurement in a Project s Early Phases. Defense Aquisitions Beslutninger på svakt informasjonsgrunnlag. Tilnærminger og utfordringer i prosjekters tidlige fase Decisions Based on Scant Information. Challenges and Tools During the Front-end Phases of Projects Flermålsanalyser i store statlige investeringsprosjekt Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis In Major Public Investment Projects Effektvurdering av store statlige investeringsprosjekter Impact Assessment of Major Public Investment Projects Investorers vurdering av prosjekters godhet Investors Appraisal of Project Feasibility Logisk minimalisme, rasjonalitet - og de avgjørende valg Major Projects: Logical Minimalism, Rationality and Grand Choices Miljøøkonomi og samfunnsøkonomisk lønnsomhet Environmental Economics and Economic Viability The Norwegian Front-End Governance Regime of Major Public Projects A Theoretically Based Analysis and Evaluation Markedsorienterte styringsmetoder i miljøpolitikken Market oriented approaches to environmental policy Regime for planlegging og beslutning i sykehusprosjekter Planning and Decision Making in Hospital Projects. Lessons with the Norwegian Governance Scheme. Ingemund Jordanger Olav Torp (red.), Ole M Magnussen, Nils Olsson og Ole Jonny Klakegg Erik N. Warberg Kjell Sunnevåg (red.) Ingemund Jordanger, Stein Malerud, Harald Minken, Arvid Strand Bjørn Andersen, Svein Bråthen, Tom Fagerhaug, Ola Nafstad, Petter Næss og Nils Olsson Nils Olsson, Stein Frydenberg, Erik W. Jakobsen, Svein Arne Jessen, Roger Sørheim og Lillian Waagø Knut Samset, Arvid Strand og Vincent F. Hendricks Kåre P. Hagen Tom Christensen Kåre P. Hagen Asmund Myrbostad, Tarald Rohde, Pål Martinussen og Marte Lauvsnes No 26 Politisk styring, lokal rasjonalitet og komplekse koalisjoner. Tidligfaseprosessen i store offentlige investeringsprosjekter Political Control, Local Rationality and Complex Coalitions. Focus on the Front-End of Large Public Investment Projects Erik Whist, Tom Christensen

13 Concept report series Paper version ISSN Web version ISSN Norwegian English summary Report Title Author No 27 No 28 No 29 No 30 No 31 No 32 No 33 No 34 No 35 No 36 No 37 Verdsetting av fremtiden. Tidshorisont og diskonteringsrenter Valuing the future. Time Horizon and Discount Rates Fjorden, byen og operaen. En evaluering av Bjørvikautbyggingen i et beslutningsteoretisk perspektiv The Fjord, the City and the Opera. An Evaluation of Bjørvika Urban Development Levedyktighet og investeringstiltak. Erfaringer fra kvalitetssikring av statlige investeringsprosjekter Sustainability and Public Investments. Lessons from Major Public Investment Projects Etterevaluering av statlige investeringsprosjekter. Konklusjoner, erfaringer og råd basert på pilotevaluering av fire prosjekter Evaluating Public Investment Projects. Lessons and Advice from a Meta-Evaluation of Four Projects Store statlige investeringers betydning for konkurranse- og markedsutviklingen. Håndtering av konkurransemessige problemstillinger i utredningsfasen Major Public Investments' Impact on Competition. How to Deal with Competition Issues as Part of the Project Appraisal Analyse av systematisk usikkerhet i norsk økonomi. Analysis of Systematic Uncertainty in the Norwegian Economy. Planprosesser, beregningsverktøy og bruk av nyttekostnadsanalyser i vegsektoren. En sammenlikning av praksis i Norge og Sverige. Planning, Analytic Tools and the Use of Cost-Benefit Analysis in the Transport Sector in Norway and Sweden. Mulighetsrommet. En studie om konseptutredninger og konseptvalg The Opportunity Space. A Study of Conceptual Appraisals and the Choice of Conceptual Solutions. Statens prosjektmodell. Bedre kostnadsstyring. Erfaringer med de første investeringstiltakene som har vært gjennom ekstern kvalitetssikring Investing for Impact. Lessons with the Norwegian State Project Model and the First Investment Projects that Have Been Subjected to External Quality Assurance Bruk av karbonpriser i praktiske samfunnsøkonomiske analyser. En oversikt over praksis fra analyser av statlige investeringsprosjekter under KVU-/KS1-ordningen. Kåre P. Hagen Erik Whist, Tom Christensen Ola Lædre, Gro Holst Volden, Tore Haavaldsen Gro Holst Volden og Knut Samset Asbjørn Englund, Harald Bergh, Aleksander Møll og Ove Skaug Halsos Haakon Vennemo, Michael Hoel og Henning Wahlquist Morten Welde, Jonas Eliasson, James Odeck, Maria Börjesson Knut Samset, Bjørn Andersen og Kjell Austeng Knut Samset og Gro Holst Volden Knut Samset og Gro Holst Volden Gro Holst Volden

14 Concept report series Paper version ISSN Web version ISSN Norwegian English summary Report Title Author No 38 Use of Carbon Prices in Cost-Benefit Analysis. Practices in Project Appraisals of Major Public Investment Projects under the Norwegian State Project Model Ikke-prissatte virkninger i samfunnsøkonomisk analyse. Praksis og erfaringer i statlige investeringsprosjekter Non-Monetized Impacts in Economic Analysis. Practice and Lessons from Public Investment Projects Heidi Bull-Berg, Gro Holst Volden og Inger Lise Tyholt Grindvoll

15 Forskningsprogrammet Concept skal utvikle kunnskap som sikrer bedre ressursutnytting og effekt av store, statlige investeringer. Programmet driver følgeforskning knyttet til de største statlige investeringsprosjektene over en rekke år. En skal trekke erfaringer fra disse som kan bedre utformingen og kvalitetssikringen av nye investeringsprosjekter før de settes i gang. The Concept research program aims to develop know-how to help make more efficient use of resources and improve the effect of major public investments. The Program is designed to follow up on the largest public projects over a period of several years, and help improve design and quality assurance of future public projects before they are formally approved. Concept er lokalisert ved Norges teknisk- naturvitenskapelige universitet i Trondheim (NTNU), ved Fakultet for ingeniørvitenskap og teknologi. Programmet samarbeider med ledende norske og internasjonale fagmiljøer og universiteter, og er finansiert av Finansdepartementet. The program is based at The Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), Faculty of Engineering Science and Technology. It cooperates with key Norwegian and international professional institutions and universities, and is financed by the Norwegian Ministry of Finance. Address: The Concept Research Program Høgskoleringen 7A N-7491 NTNU Trondheim NORWAY ISSN: (paper version) ISSN: (web version) ISBN: (paper version) ISBN: (web version)